1.      Heard Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Wills Mathew, Advocate for the respondents.

2.      This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, dated 23.12.2019, passed in First Appeal No. 713 of 2017 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, dated 31.08.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 186 of 2016), where by the complaint has been allowed and the appeal has been dismissed.

3.      Preenu Zachariah and Priya Zachariah (the respondents) filed Consumer Complaint No. 186 of 2016 on 07.06.2016 for directing the petitioners to pay (i) Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest, from the date of deposit to Preenu Zachariah (ii) Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest, from the date of deposit to Priya Zachariah (iii) Rs.2,00,000/- for their mental agony and hardship and (iv) cost of litigation to them. It has been stated that Zachariah Mathew (father of the complainants) was a non-resident Indian and was working in Kuwait. The opposite parties were a Banking Finance Public Limited Company, approved by Reserve Bank of India and engaged in the business of financial service. They had a branch at Cherukole, Mavelikara. The complainants deposited various amounts, during 20.10.2008 to 30.08.2012, in the branch at Cherukole, through account payee cheques, i.e. total Rs.4,90,000/- by Preenu Zachariah and total Rs.9,00,000/- by Priya Zachariah. In September, 2013, Zachariah Mathew came back to his house from Kuwait and went to the branch office Cherukole for withdrawing money deposited by him but payment was denied on the pretext that the Branch Manager of Cherukole branch had misappropriated some amount and an inquiry was going on against him. The complainants gave legal notice dated 10.07.2014 to the opposite parties for refunding, their entire money of Rs.13,90,000/- along with interest accrued on it as per plan of the deposit, then they gave a reply that as soon as they would realize the misappropriated amount, payment would be done. On the allegation that the deposits made by the complainants, cannot be withheld on the ground that Branch Manager had misappropriated some amount, the present complaint was filed.   

4.      On notice of the complaint, the petitioners filed their joint written reply, in which they took plea that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainants were not consumers. As the complainants did not have any documents relating to deposit, with them as such payment was denied to them. George Mathew was real brother of Zacharia Mathew. George Mathew was posted as Branch Manager at Cherukole branch during 05.06.2006 to 20.10.2008. He worked with them till 04.11.2012. In October, 2013, he was transferred to Regional Office. When the father of the complainants complained about not permitting withdrawal of his deposit, then an inquiry was conducted. In the inquiry, it was found that George Mathew had done embezzlement of Rs.90,24,000/- during 20.10.2008 to 30.08.2012. Then they filed civil suit i.e. O.S. No. 14 of 2014, for realization of aforesaid amount, against George Mathew and his wife, before Sub Court of Mavelikara, which was pending. During pendency of O.S. No. 14 of 2014, the complaint was not maintainable. They lodged a F.I.R. i.e. Crime No. 106/2014, under Section 20(b), 406, 408, 420, 34 Indian Penal Code, against them.     

 5.     The complainants filed their documentary evidence and examined Zacharia Mathew as PW-1. The opposite parties filed copy of the plaint of O.S. No. 14 of 2014 (Ext-B-1). District Forum, consolidated this complaint along with CC No. 187 of 2016 and by order dated 09.10.2017, found that the complainants were consumers and the complaint was maintainable. Pendency of O.S. No. 14 of 2014, before Civil Court against George Mathew, an employee of the opposite party and wife of George Mathew, for recovery of money, does not affect the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate the consumer complaint. The deposits made by the complainants through account payee cheque with the branch of the opposite parties were admitted as such the complainants were entitled for refund of their money together with benefits accrued on it. On these findings, the complaint was allowed. The petitioners challenged aforesaid order, in Appeal No. 713 of 2017. State Commission, heard this appeal along with Appeal No. 714 of 2017 and by the impugned order, upheld the findings of District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision has been filed. 

6.      I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. Both the Foras below found that in Ext.-A-2, which was a reply given by the petitioners to the notice of the complainants; deposits made by the complainants through cheques have been admitted. O.S. No. 14 of 2014 has been dismissed by Sub Court Mavelikara. The complainants were not parties in the civil suit. Therefore, their money cannot be withheld. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Foras below in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. Admittedly the complainants were neither impleaded as the defendants in O.S. No. 14 of 2014 nor were they cited as accused in Crime No. 106/2014. For the reason that George Mathew, who had allegedly made embezzlement of the fund, is bother of Zachariah Mathew, the money deposited by the complainants with the petitioner’s branch cannot be withheld. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. 

ORDER

The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.